anyway, there are scores of other examples which prove that fox is highly partisan and shouldn't be considered as a legitimate news organization....and this is the place to post the evidence and your commentary.

I'm thinking of starting a new feature called "FOX Flashback," where we remember the outrageously unprofessional things FOX News and its hosts, both opinion and "news" hosts, have done over the years to prove that they're nothing more than the propaganda organ of the Teabagging wing of the Republican party.

So not only is a Scientologist reportedly one of Sarah Palin's top advisers, but the man is the husband of FOX News' Greta Van Susteren. And ThinkProgress says that not only did Van Susteren never reveal that her husband was a top Palin adviser, while Van Susteren was interviewing Palin on FOX during the campaign, but TP says that Van Sustern even did stories about her husband's work, without revealing her husband's involvement in it.

Rest of the media does this, but FOX is way over the top. OTT that is unmatched.

Politicians, holders of public office and political party's can/should as a main rule refrain from taking the press to court, chances are they will lose anyway, public person's/making a living as such, politicians and political party's must be prepared to accept, wrongful, unfair and harsh criticism, and to be scrutinised by Journalists and political opponents, in most western democracy's the laws about slander/libel ect, is for the most part not inclusive of political figures and party's, in reality they can not expect the same protection by the slander/libel law's as private individuals can.

There are many good reasons for that, protecting the freedom of the press, providing an environment where nobody, because of fear of lawsuits, keep their mouth shut about crimes/lies, misrepresentation, issues about politicians morality, dirty deals and false election promises ect. ect. thus safeguarding and ensuring maximum transparency in politics, and in the doings of holders of public office.

It is very dangerous to start messing with those traditions/rules, and there can be no end to the slide of our rights to always question what our politicians are up to, and to be wrong when we/the press do it, there is thousands of cases that prove that we must always be extremely vigilant, and in being that it goes without saying that we/the press will be barking up the wrong tree more often than not.

Politicians exist and survive by way of press exposure and publicity, and they constantly try to use the press to their advantage in the most shameless manner, with blatant lies, small lies and with presenting facts in the most one-eyed and biased manner, the press reacts to that, it is a game for high stakes, where giving and taking is the norm, the courts has taken that into consideration when they established that politicians/political party's can not expect protection from libel/slander the same way the rest of the population can.

So all-though politicians (and you) can sometimes cringe or become mad at the way political opponents use the press, the best and only way to deal with that, is through the power of righteous arguments, if there are any?

Finally considering the power the Democrats claim to have at the moment it is actually quite petty and hysterical to attack their allegedly weak and desperate opponent in the courts (if that is what they are going to do), actually it might just make somebody doubt if the Democrats really are as strong as they want people to believe, and that their opponent is as desperate and weak after all !!

Finally, everybody knows FOX's political stance, so it is a bit exposing that "big surprise", apart from that any news stations big mistakes and blunders is always good entertainment.

How about a journalist with a shred of credibility. At the White House yesterday, ABC's Jake Tapper laid into Comrade Obama's answer to Baghdad Bob over Big Government's campaign against Fox News:

Tapper: It's escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations "not a news organization" and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one…

[Press Secretary Robert] Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that's a pretty sweeping declaration that they are "not a news organization." …

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight. Or 5 o'clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a "news organization" — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That's our opinion.

Maybe the media is experiencing the first stirrings of regret over having created this monster. If the Obamination Administration succeeds in destroying Fox News and talk radio (probably with a race-based attack by the FCC Diversity Czar), next in the crosshairs will be the liberal establishment media that installed The Anointed One in office. In countries run by Marxists, every word must conform to the regime's script. Hopey McChange's enablers may get eaten last, but they will still get eaten.

Unsurprisingly, Obama puppeteer George Soros agrees that a news organization is not a news organization unless it says exactly what the government wants it to say. His Moveon.org outfit is circulating a petition demanding that all Democrat pols stay off Fox News.

This is how totalitarians have done things everywhere else they've taken power, so none of this should come as a surprise as the militant left consolidates control of the country.

Fox News? It's rating are above all other news channels, its viewership is through the roof and they report news that others news outlets won't be bothered with because it could harm their agenda.

The thing about most news reporters is they ask a politician a question and the politician dances around it with their answer. Then the reporter goes on to the next question. Absolutely no investigative reporting. If you ever take a moment to watch Fox News, rather than read some jealous bashing from some ultra left wing website, you would see that the reporters there go after the politician that is doing a dance around a question. They repeat the question or rephrase it until it is obvious that the politician is a liar or hiding something.

Hmmm, should I trust Fox News or should I trust the Teakdoor ramblings of a delusional, miserable old TEFLer like Ray?

...If you ever take a moment to watch Fox News, rather than read some jealous bashing from some ultra left wing website, you would see that the reporters there go after the [Democrat] politician that is doing a dance around a question...

...If you ever take a moment to watch Fox News, rather than read some jealous bashing from some ultra left wing website, you would see that the reporters there go after the [Democrat] politician that is doing a dance around a question...

There, fixed that for you.

Not true. I have heard them criticize Bush, Cheney and any other repub when they did something wrong.

BTW Ant, how would you now? Do you watch Fox or just came up with that on your own?

The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August. Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do." "She criticized 'Fox News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check." "Let's fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign," Wallace added. "A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn's facts were just plain wrong." Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente said: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues."

What others think of the White House attack on Fox -

Top political strategists question the decision by the Obama administration to escalate its offensive against Fox News. And as of Monday, the four other major television networks had not given any indication that they intend to sever their ties with Fox News.

Observers on both sides of the political aisle questioned the White House's decision to continue waging war on a news organization, saying the move carried significant political risks.

...If you ever take a moment to watch Fox News, rather than read some jealous bashing from some ultra left wing website, you would see that the reporters there go after the [Democrat] politician that is doing a dance around a question...

There, fixed that for you.

Not true. I have heard them criticize Bush, Cheney and any other repub when they did something wrong.

BTW Ant, how would you now? Do you watch Fox or just came up with that on your own?

I've watched it in the past, yes.

The point is Chi, Fox is demonstrably agenda-driven and biased. And you don't have to be "ultra left wing" to see that.

As for Dunn's complaint about Fox News' coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.
On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories -- a spread of 59 points.

...If you ever take a moment to watch Fox News, rather than read some jealous bashing from some ultra left wing website, you would see that the reporters there go after the [Democrat] politician that is doing a dance around a question...

There, fixed that for you.

Not true. I have heard them criticize Bush, Cheney and any other repub when they did something wrong.

BTW Ant, how would you now? Do you watch Fox or just came up with that on your own?

I've watched it in the past, yes.

The point is Chi, Fox is demonstrably agenda-driven and biased. And you don't have to be "ultra left wing" to see that.

Then you would know that it is not true. They report about both republicans and democrats. And by the way, the left has its bed partners all curled upo next to them CNN, MSNBC etc. So what would be wrong with if it was on the right side? I mean you have to admit that the other networks are far left. Kind of like allowing a NAACP. but not having a NAAWP or a Miss Black America contest, but not a Miss White America contest.

The Color Of News: How Different Media Have Covered the General Election

When it comes to coverage of the campaign for president 2008, where one goes for news makes a difference, according to a new study.
In cable, the evidence firmly suggests there now really is an ideological divide between two of the three channels, at least in their coverage of the campaign.

Things look much better for Barack Obama--and much worse for John McCain--on MSNBC than in most other news outlets. On the Fox News Channel, the coverage of the presidential candidates is something of a mirror image of that seen on MSNBC.

The tone of CNN's coverage, meanwhile, lies somewhere in the middle of the cable spectrum, and is generally more negative than the press overall.
On the evening newscasts of the three traditional networks, in contrast, there is no such ideological split. Indeed, on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere. On the network morning shows, Sarah Palin is a bigger story than she is in the media generally.
And on NBC News programs, there is no reflection of the tendency of its cable sibling MSNBC toward more favorable coverage of Democrats and more negative of Republicans than the norm.
Online, meanwhile, polling tends to drive the news. And on the front pages of newspapers, which often feature the day-after story, things look tougher for John McCain than they tend to in the media overall.

These are some of the findings of the study, which examined 2,412 stories from 48 outlets during the time period from September 8 to October 16.1 The report is a companion to a study released October 22 about the tone of coverage overall. This new report breaks down the coverage of tone by specific media sectors--print, cable news, network television and online.
Among the findings:

MSNBC stood out for having less negative coverage of Obama than the press generally (14% of stories vs. 29% in the press overall) and for having more negative stories about McCain (73% of its coverage vs. 57% in the press overall).

On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally). For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1.

CNN fell distinctly in the middle of the three cable channels when it came to tone. In general, the tone of its coverage was closer than any other cable news channel to the press overall, though also somewhat more negative than the media overall.

The distinct tone of MSNBC--more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans--was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some MSNBC programs, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC's coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News.

At night, the newscasts of the three traditional broadcast networks stood out for being more neutral -- and also less negative -- than most other news outlets. The morning shows of the networks, by contrast, more closely resembled the media generally in tone. That might surprise some who imagined those morning programs were somehow easier on political figures. Overall, 44% of the morning show stories were clearly negative, compared with 34% on the nightly news and 42% in the press overall.

These findings augment what was learned from a broader report on campaign media coverage released a week earlier entitled "Winning the Media Campaign: How the How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election." That study found that in the media overall -- a sample of 43 outlets studied in the six weeks following the conventions through the last debate -- Barack Obama's coverage was somewhat more positive than negative (36% vs. 29%), while John McCain's, in contrast, was substantially negative (57% vs. 14% positive). The report concluded that this, in significant part, reflected and magnified the horse race and direction of the polls.

Then you would know that it is not true. They report about both republicans and democrats. And by the way, the left has its bed partners all curled upo next to them CNN, MSNBC etc. So what would be wrong with if it was on the right side? I mean you have to admit that the other networks are far left. Kind of like allowing a NAACP. but not having a NAAWP or a Miss Black America contest, but not a Miss White America contest.

Whoever said anytbing about them not reporting on Republicans?

My point is that Fox news is clearly an agenda-driven and partisan organisation. And to answer your question there's really nothing inherently wrong with it; it's just that I find their 'fair and balanced' line quite laughable in light of it. I mean it's one thing to be partisan and freely admit it, quite another to actively disclaim it in an attempt to somehow give yourself more credibility.